Engadget42%

Elon Musk Says X Will DM You About Posts That Receive A Community Note 17%

By Ian Carlos Campbell26%

7/8/2026, 2:50:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Status Quo Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 656 faulty-reasoning hits from 416 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.5% and a BS Rank of 17% (18,254 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 83.40% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk says X will DM you about posts that receive a Community Note 
The social platform wants its crowd-sourced corrections to be harder to ignore. 
By Ian Carlos Campbell 
July 8, 2026 5:50 pm EST 
X will update Community Notes so that anyone who interacts with a post that's corrected by a note will receive a direct message notifying them of the change, according to Elon Musk . 
The SpaceX CEO didn't specify when the update will actually be released, but the tweak will presumably make it more likely users are made aware of potentially misleading information. 
Currently, if you like, repost or reply to a post that receives a Community Note, you'll receive a notification in the X app or on the web. 
Notifications are only sent after a Community Note is determined to be helpful and it's been viewable for 24 hours. 
X also alerts the authors of posts that have received Community Notes once a note has been live for at least six hours. 
Depending on how you use X, notifications might be easier to ignore than a message, which could be one reason X is making this change. 
We will be releasing a new @CommunityNotes feature that sends you an 𝕏 Chat message if a post you interacted with is corrected 
 Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 8, 2026 
X adopted Community Notes as its primary means of preventing the spread of misinformation in 2022, two years after the feature was originally introduced as Birdwatch . 
Crowd-sourced corrections to misleading posts may address Elon Musk's fears of platform overreach or censorship, but they're not necessarily the most effective way to stop the spread of misinformation. 
In a May 2026 study published in Nature Communications of 237,180 "cascades" (community-noted posts and their reposts), researchers found that "although community notes are broadly effective in reducing the spread of posts once annotated, they often appear too late to intervene in the early (and most viral) stage of the diffusion." 
Regardless of the efficacy of Community Notes, the concept has spread to platforms other than X. 
As part of a major moderation change in 2025, Meta decided to end its US fact-checking system and adopt community notes across its apps . 
X has also gone on to modify its approach to sourcing corrections, allowing contributors to Community Notes to request an AI-generated note on posts , rather than writing them by hand. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.4%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.7%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.8%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.4%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias7.0%This article: 6.3%Ian Carlos Campbell: 5.9%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.5%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.3%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.4%Ian Carlos Campbell: 6.2%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias14.4%This article: 7.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.1%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 2.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 6.9%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.6%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.6%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error7.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.4%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.5%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.1%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.8%Ian Carlos Campbell: 5.2%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority24.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.6%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.3%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 4.6%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.2%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.8%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.7%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon3.8%This article: 7.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.0%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.7%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.0%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.0%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.1%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.4%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.2%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 2.7%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 1.4%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.9%Ian Carlos Campbell: 7.2%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice15.9%This article: 5.5%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.9%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination5.5%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Carlos Campbell: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Ian Carlos Campbell: 3.8%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

416 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers16%attributed speech349writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageIan Carlos Campbell • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageX • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 23 words • 100.0% coverageElon Musk • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

X

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words49% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%X: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%X: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%X: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.